Re: Bug#904688: qttools-opensource-src: FTBFS: please drop the libclang-dev B-D on some architectures
2018-07-28 1:45 GMT+02:00 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
<glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>:
> On 07/28/2018 01:41 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
>> I was using codesearch.d.n and there are 83 that match "qdoc":
>> https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=%5CWqdoc%5CW
>
> Wait a minute. How can there be 83 packages already using qdoc when
> Lisandro just uploaded the version of qttools to unstable which first
> contained the qdoc utility. I am confused.
The packages matching the search contain code matching *.qdoc for
example, not all necessarily invoke qdoc. Maybe one can restrict the
query to calls of qdoc from d/rules, but I think that there will be
indirect ways to use qdoc (like "make" in docs dir or something).
Anyway, maybe I am misunderstanding the problem, but as I understand
it (don't know for sure) is that qdoc was there for a long time, it's
not a new thing, and what changed is that it now uses llvm/clang to
parse and generate doc instead of some internal code or other external
parsers. And the breakage for some ports is that not all of them have
support in llvm/clang, whereas presumably what they used before was
OK.
>> Probably not all of these will actually use it for building (maybe
>> they will only test if available, and will generate an empty package
>> or something), others might do it only on -indep as Adrian says.
>> Almost certainly it will break some package.
>
> It shouldn't break any package. Again, building documentation in the
> binary-arch target should be considered a bug and get fixed.
That's more or less what I said, in other words. I am convinced that
it will cause some breakage, because not all packages are perfect or
because of corner cases, only that uncovering the breakage is probably
a good thing in most or all cases, alerting about wrong practices.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>
Reply to: